What is it about?

Here's how the editors sum up my argument: "Klaus Speidel takes a first step towards “descriptive narratology” in his article. Speidel takes the well-known theoretical discussion about whether an individual image can be considered a narrative and puts it to an empirical test. He argues for the value of the intuitions of everyday picture viewers over the definitions derived from theoretical systems that might be biased towards the verbal model. Speidel brings into dialogue the discussions of narratology, that unfold around very specific and refined terminologies, and the everyday sense in which picture viewers might say “this really tells a story”, presenting a new possible model for doing narrative studies empirically.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This study challenges the idea that in order to know if something is of a certain kind, for instance an artwork, a story, a game, definitions are a good place to start. In narratology, this is however the most common approach. Rather, the article suggests that definitions should stand the test of intuitions as systematically assessed in experiments. This is the first empirical study concerning the way the narrativity of single pictures is assessed by viewers. It challenges expert definitions of narrative and suggests that narrative studies have traditionally been revisionary, not taking sufficiently into account what laypeople think about narrative.

Perspectives

I hope that this article will be - as one anonymous reviewer suggested - "a healthy provocation of narratology" and that it will get people to question definitions that are handed down from one scholar to another mostly without being questioned.

Klaus Speidel
Universitat Wien

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: What narrative is, Frontiers of Narrative Studies, November 2018, De Gruyter,
DOI: 10.1515/fns-2018-0033.
You can read the full text:

Read

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page